You say this as if 95% of the party isn't a corporate Democrat and it's ok for Dems to publicly out members who aren't to the center enough. Meanwhile, you have Dem leadership (Biden) being caught red handed actually dealing and taking money from foreign governments but not publicizing any of it
do you think she's right here? of accusing a presidential candidate of being a groomed Russian operative??? or is it like: "she's wrong, but you shouldn't care about it?" I'm also not super sure what Bernie has to do with any of this?It never ceases to amuse me how tilted Hillary makes people just by continuing to exist, especially when it's suggested that there were external forces that contributed to her loss.
Like, note that I said "contributed" because even as a Clinton supporter I acknowledge that there were many problems of her (or her campaign's) own making.
And these are often Sanders supporters in 2016 who will tell you (if you have the time) that the DNC's preference for Clinton was the sole reason he lost, despite the fundamental issue with his campaign writing off black votes in the South completely after getting blown out in South Carolina.
I'd agree he was in cahoots with them before his presidency, but on a business level with the Russian oligarchs. He's a corrupted businessman and he's without a doubt a criminal.Sanctions that Trump is looking to take back and these new 7.5 billion EU tariffs also help Russia.
And while Trump definitely in cahoots with Israel and SA, he is more so with Russia even before his presidency. You made the original claim, the evidence was provided disproving your claim and now we await your receipts on how Trump isn't in cahoots/lap dog of Russia.
I don't think anything is being overstated? Acknowledging and being aware of the threat of election meddling is just stating the facts. They got the result they wanted in 2016 and they will try again; and if that means propping up a 'preferred' Democratic candidate like Tulsi, they will do so. American intelligence community has confirmed these facts. Also Hillary isn't running 2020, this isn't about her like your original post aspersed. I don't like the comparison to McCarthyism. Hillary didn't mention Tulsi; we're assuming Tulsi because Tulsi's fucking wack and everyone knows it. Hillary is also smarter about this stuff than any of us likely ever will be, so while I appreciate the history lesson and all, I'm pretty sure she doesn't need it.That's true both suck, but also, overstating the power of Russia is also serving Putin's bidding.
America should defend itself against interference in elections, but this goes for any nation or non-elected corporate power operating within the United States.
I am of the opinion every election in the world has had interference from foreign powers dating back to Kennedy and beyond.
The thing about the Red Scare is not a question of if there were Communists, or people with aligning views with communists, or people who actually as spies for Russia during WWII living in the US and working in the government at many levels. All those things were true.
The folly of those years was corrupt failure of due process for political means and a complete overstatement and inflation of the USSR's reach for political means. It's the type of thing which makes horrific wars like Vietnam seem to be the right move, because you can't win votes if your opponent calls you a Pinko or says you are weak on the Reds.
Russia should not have this amount of influence over US affairs. Their entire purpose and goal is to re-gain influence. Putin's selling point is restoring Russian pride and glory after the USA neutered them with their own puppet ruler as the USA created regional alliances to prevent Russia from capitalizing on their Global advantages and previous reach.
So far Trump has done more in the interest of himself and Russia than the interest of the country. That should tell you all you need to know about where Trump is at foreign policy wise.I'd agree he was in cahoots with them before his presidency, but on a business level with the Russian oligarchs. He's a corrupted businessman and he's without a doubt a criminal.
No on disproved anything, I personally believe that given what I've posted and what others have posted he hasn't done anything that by definition can label him as a "lapdog".
But then again, I wasn't clear with my first post because I didn't expect a lot of responses (no bait I really didn't lol).
Because a lot of people get really tilted that bernie continues to exist.do you think she's right here? of accusing a presidential candidate of being a groomed Russian operative??? or is it like: "she's wrong, but you shouldn't care about it?" I'm also not super sure what Bernie has to do with any of this?
yes
yupof accusing a presidential candidate of being a groomed Russian operative???
nopeor is it like: "she's wrong, but you shouldn't care about it?"
commenting on the people in this thread who would rather scream about how she didn't campaign in Michigan than refute any of her pointsI'm also not super sure what Bernie has to do with any of this?
Is this about the unsubstantiated Derkach claim that's being spread around?You say this as if 95% of the party isn't a corporate Democrat and it's ok for Dems to publicly out members who aren't to the center enough. Meanwhile, you have Dem leadership (Biden) being caught red handed actually dealing and taking money from foreign governments but not publicizing any of it
How would someone refute her points? You would literally need to proof a negative.commenting on the people in this thread who would rather scream about how she didn't campaign in Michigan than refute any of her points
yes. I rephrased her comments. Also Im not a fan of Tulsi anyway; so I have no stake in defending her besides thinking that it's probably not appropriate to have said it (lol like we all know she meant Tulsi).yes
yup
although technically she didn't call Gabbard a Russian operative, she said "she" was their favorite candidate. And in fact there's already proof of this
nope
commenting on the people in this thread who would rather scream about how she didn't campaign in Michigan than refute any of her points
Trump's
Yea I'm ignorant because I expressed my opinions in relation to his foreign policy, all which is public information not something I cooked up like those MAGA weirdos.I'll continue quoting your ignorance and attempts to move goal posts. I suspect others will too and we'll all be very busy. Cleaning up your bullshit is becoming quite an effort.
And it's not like if a Gabbard third-party run happened that Russia would be putting all their eggs in the Tusli basket. They're going to push on every division they can, they're going to push misinformation, they're going to attack the winning candidate, they're going to feed right-wing media.I don't think anything is being overstated? Acknowledging and being aware of the threat of election meddling is just stating the facts. They got the result they wanted in 2016 and they will try again; and if that means propping up a 'preferred' Democratic candidate like Tulsi, they will do so. American intelligence community has confirmed these facts. Also Hillary isn't running 2020, this isn't about her like your original post aspersed. I don't like the comparison to McCarthyism. Hillary didn't mention Tulsi; we're assuming Tulsi because Tulsi's fucking wack and everyone knows it. Hillary is also smarter about this stuff than any of us likely ever will be, so while I appreciate the history lesson and all, I'm pretty sure she doesn't need it.
What's clownish about it exactly?
I'm already aware of the things he has done for Russia but I'm trying to say that has has also a lot of things that work against them as well. I already agreed that the 2016 collusion was fact not fiction. But I guess what I'm saying doesn't even matter since he's willing to compromise the US so easily and readily.trump is absolutely compromised by Saudi Arabia- turkey and potentially Israel but those are small potatoes compared to how deeply indebted he is to Vladimir Putin- so I take zero issue with you suggesting he's compromised by those actors but dismiss with prejudice your baffling refusal to accept extremely well documented and investigated problems with his Russian alignment and to be blunt the fact that you're giving detailed responses on specific pipeline stories but ignoring the 2016 election or the multiple attempts to eliminate sanctions or weird obfuscation of Putin meetings or the condo and property laundering or the Deutschebank problems and more- is extremely bizarre.
it's like a mechanic who just jetted a carburetor and drained a radiator scratching his head at a lugnut.
Yea I'm ignorant because I expressed my opinions in relation to his foreign policy, all which is public information not something I cooked up like those MAGA weirdos.
I'm sooo ignorant that I accepted other viewpoints and have said I was wrong in the way I worded my first comment.
Oh look Mr.Clean is going to make it his duty to "clean up my BS" by personally attacking me instead of, you know, posting links/evidence to support your argument?
You don't rattle me Mr.Clean.
Yep, a factual post that doesn't align with your viewpoint has to be an alt account.
Ok, but it's not like she said "Tulsi's an alien, you can't prove otherwise!" There are enough legitimate concerns people have raised about Gabbard either in her words or actions that point to someone who is being (willingly or otherwise) used by Russian disinformation campaigns to stir up trouble in the primary.How would someone refute her points? You would literally need to proof a negative.
Yep, a factual post that doesn't align with your viewpoint has to be an alt account.
I don't care what you believe Mr. Clean. The man that posted no substance is calling me out for not "knowing what I'm talking about". Do you want to state any other grievances Mr.Clean?You don't know what you're talking about and you're trying hard to make it seem like you just misspoke or communicated poorly. No one believes you.
Also her "I don't see deplorables" line, lolShe brought up Hillary by name a few times during the debate, and I thought it was weird. I'm now wondering if she didn't do it to trigger a certain type of person
But isn't this 99% on Clinton for being shit (in the minds of those voters) instead of Stein being good. Russia didn't make HRC the most disliked candidate, unless...Ok, but it's not like she said "Tulsi's an alien, you can't prove otherwise!" There are enough legitimate concerns people have raised about Gabbard either in her words or actions that point to someone who is being (willingly or otherwise) used by Russian disinformation campaigns to stir up trouble in the primary.
Same for Stein, really. It's in the Mueller Report itself that those same campaigns encouraged people to vote third party (Stein, specifically) instead of Clinton. The only debatable aspect of that, like Gabbard, is how involved Stein was in that effort or if she was just a useful idiot, neither of which is a good look for her.
do you think she's right here? of accusing a presidential candidate of being a groomed Russian operative??? or is it like: "she's wrong, but you shouldn't care about it?" I'm also not super sure what Bernie has to do with any of this?
Who do you think backs her Syrian BFF?Tulsi just sucks because she sucks, she's not being ~groomed by Russia~. This is dumb.
This is coming from someone who literally just made a shit post and looked all up and down my profile instead of giving me an actual counter argumentWell when someone keeps shit posting the same garbo and has their account on hide with such a low post count, logical assumptions are made.
You say this as if 95% of the party isn't a corporate Democrat and it's ok for Dems to publicly out members who aren't to the center enough. Meanwhile, you have Dem leadership (Biden) being caught red handed actually dealing and taking money from foreign governments but not publicizing any of it
I don't care what you believe Mr. Clean. The man that posted no substance is calling me out for not "knowing what I'm talking about". Do you want to state any other grievances Mr.Clean?
A counter argument to what exactly? That Biden is the real corruption in Washington?This is coming from someone who literally just made a shit post and looked all up and down my profile instead of giving me an actual counter argument
Literally none of this contradicts Clinton's point that Russian operatives boosted Stein's candidacy.But isn't this 99% on Clinton for being shit (in the minds of those voters) instead of Stein being good. Russia didn't make HRC the most disliked candidate, unless...
She doesn't need it, because she was supporting Red-baiting candidates back in the 60s.I don't think anything is being overstated? Acknowledging and being aware of the threat of election meddling is just stating the facts. They got the result they wanted in 2016 and they will try again; and if that means propping up a 'preferred' Democratic candidate like Tulsi, they will do so. American intelligence community has confirmed these facts. Also Hillary isn't running 2020, this isn't about her like your original post aspersed. I don't like the comparison to McCarthyism. Hillary didn't mention Tulsi; we're assuming Tulsi because Tulsi's fucking wack and everyone knows it. Hillary is also smarter about this stuff than any of us likely ever will be, so while I appreciate the history lesson and all, I'm pretty sure she doesn't need it.
you're not even gonna explain
Yeah, it's Tulsi. The only other person who might consider a third party run is Bernie, since he is technically not a Democrat anyway. But he didn't run in 2016 third party, and I highly doubt he will in 2020. He doesn't want to be seen as the spoiler.
So did you vote Trump?This is my take as well. Except I don't like any version of Hillary.
You say this as if 95% of the party isn't a corporate Democrat and it's ok for Dems to publicly out members who aren't to the center enough. Meanwhile, you have Dem leadership (Biden) being caught red handed actually dealing and taking money from foreign governments but not publicizing any of it
kk good talk
He literally defended her recent sensitivity to transphobia, so this is nothing.lmao 2/3 of this forum are fucking morons
Hillary stans aren't required to believe every ridiculous thing she says. Just a tip!